Richard Dannatt is "playing politics" too

Wednesday, 15th July 2009

General Richard Dannatt may well be correct to demand additional men and equipment for the Afghan campaign and the military has certainly been ill-served by this government (though not only by this most recent ministry). But when the accusation of "playing politics" is thrown around let's not forget that the good General is perfectly adept at playing that game himself.

Perhaps it really is the case that he can only tour Afghanistan in an American helicopter. Perhaps it is even "self-evidently" the case that he's only using a US chopper because there aren't any British ones. As I say, this could all be true but it is also most convenient for General Dannatt that it be seen to be true. In other words, he's "playing politics" too and trying to increase pressure on the government.

Dannatt is defending his interest and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean he's not above a spot of spin-doctoring himself...

Filed under: Afghanistan (339 more articles) , Britain (736 more articles) , Defence (352 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Rhoda Klapp

July 15th, 2009 7:24pm Report this comment

Everybody is playing politics. The question is, is anyone trying to win the war? Or are they just afraid of the loss of political face involved in pulling out. That is not a good reason to stay.
An extra 2000 troops and all the helos in the world will ony provde more targets, unless there is a will to win. And I can't see it. The way PMQs went is a disgrace, as it always is. Headlines matter more than headstones, it seems.

mac

July 15th, 2009 8:23pm Report this comment

"Dannatt is defending his interest".

Just what are you criticising here? Do you mean to imply he has some narrow personal or partisan organisational interest?

As CGS he's very properly defending those he is responsible for. I appreciate that that is an alien concept to New Labour and much of our benighted Establishment, 4th estate included.

In the absence of grown-up political leadership, in the face of dangerous Brownian parsimony and utter disdain for the military his concern is properly for an ill-served British expeditionary force.

Or do you buy Brown's line that the force in Afghanistan is well-equipped and "everything that can be done is being done"? It's horsesh*t, Alex.

The Bellman

July 16th, 2009 10:41am Report this comment

As well as defending 'his' interests, he is also defending our servicemen, as he has done at every step of his career, and, in the longer term, defending Britain's national strategic interests and our reputation.

Our freedom of action on almost any conceivable issue is fatally constrained by McSnotty's failed economic policy. Yet it is apparently axiomatically The Right Thing To Do to pour money into various ideologically-motivated projects while simultaneously denying the need to 'invest' [sic] with more urgency on matters of life and death. "Everything we can" is a pathetic, weasel evasion of responsibility, especially in the context of a history of stupid assertions and delusional boasts that cost lives as well as money.

By the way, that's 'Sir Richard' or 'General Dannatt', you long-haired oik.